EXTRAVAGANT SHOPPING.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15917, 2 June 1917, Page 9

EXTRAVAGANT SHOPPING.

MAORI WOMAN'S PURCHASES

REMARKABLE EVIDENCE.

(press association* telegram.) GISBORNE, June 1. Some remarkable evidence was given in a case against a Native woman, named Tepaca Tait, who was charged with having forged orders purporting to have been drawn on the Mangatu No. 1 account trustee, H. C. Jackson, totalling £2500.

Accused's husband, who is manager of the property, deposed that he had authority to sign orders in connexion with work on tho property, which in turn had to bo presented to the trustees. The orders produced were forged. Accused had no authority to sign on his bohalf. Detective McLeod produced a statement, signed by the accused, in which she admitted having forged her husband's signature to tho orders, which she had handed over to various tradespeople in return ror goods purchased. In her statement accused'admitted making the orders payable to mon engaged in bushfalling on the star tion. and she had endorsed them accordingly. She alleged that she did not want tho goods she had purchased, but tradespeople had pushed them on to her.

The Magistrate (Mr Barton): I can only say that if these things are true, these people have been offering a premium for dishonesty. It is a shocking state of affairs. Arthur Gordon Gnnn, in Kb evidence, said that accused presented orders for over £800 to pay an account of just over £700. Cross-examined, witness said he did not think it an extraordinary thing that accused was in possession of the orders. One order was wrongly endorsed. and was returned by the bank. Mr Lusk (of Napier, who appeared for accused): I put it to you that the accused, in your shop, re-endoreed it as required. Witness: I believe so. The Magistrate: And yon say that you did not know it "was a wrong thing to do. "Witness: No. The Magistrate: Well, I would not believe it I will say no more about it, but someone else probably will. Thomas Robert Gordon, jeweller, deposed that. bo sold accused a diamond rinc for £120. Mr I.usk: Wo had it valued at £37. did yon pay for itP WitTss: I believe £80. Mr Lusk: Was the ring worth £50? Witness: It j<? hard to say. Diamonds went up 20 nor cent, last rear. Herbert James Grieve, jeweller, in his evidence, said accused made purchases amounting to several hundred pounds, and nayment was made partly in cash. tho balance b«inir some of tho orders in question. H« was under the 'm press ion that accused and her husbnM were wealthy peonlo. Cross-examined, witness said that before he aave Mrs Tait extensive eredit, ho bad an interview with he»* husband. Magistrate: Did you tell him how she owed vnu ? • Witness: No. He assured me that sho had anv amount of her own, and ho would T>ny if she failed to do so. To Mr T/n«1:: On that sho could havo hprl whole shop. Witness d Q " ; °d selling a watch to acou«f>d for £170. He wuld swear H-nt the prVe was £70. Ho never si'eneoted that anything was wrong \vitV> tho orders. After evidpnpe f>y other tradespeople accused. reserved her defence, was committed for trial.